header-logo header-logo

Divorce: who’s to blame

02 October 2014 / Edward Heaton
Issue: 7624 / Categories: Features , Divorce , Family
printer mail-detail
heaton_0

A recent appeal court ruling highlights the flaws in a fault-based divorce system, says Ed Heaton

In Price v Price [2014] EWCA Civ 655, the Court of Appeal revisited the issue of when a decree nisi should be set aside. Mrs Price issued a petition for divorce on 14 November 2012, based upon Mr Price’s unreasonable behaviour, specifically his alleged profligacy with money. Mr Price, acting in person, filed an acknowledgement of service, in which he indicated an intention to defend the divorce, but no answer was subsequently received by the court. In the absence of any answer, Mrs Price filed an application for decree nisi on the basis that the divorce was undefended. On 29 January 2013, the court certified that Mrs Price was entitled to a decree and decree nisi was listed for pronouncement on 18 February 2013.

On 14 February 2013, Mr Price applied for the pronouncement to be vacated and for the court’s certificate to be set aside. The pronouncement was adjourned until

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll